|
On an international level, the situation is much more devastating
and dangerous. There is no question that when looked at from an international
perspective, interest kills people. The debt servicing of lesser developed
countries today is so great that they must sacrifice essential health and
nutritional needs. It is dumbfounding to think that untold numbers of children
are dying daily in lesser-developed countries due to the “tool” of modern
capitalism: interest. Some African governments are forced to spend more on
debt servicing than they spend on health or education.
In this context, the UNDP (1998) predicted that if the
external debt of the 20 poorest countries of the world was written off, it
could save the lives of 20 million people before the year 2000. In other
words, it means that uncancelled debt was responsible for the deaths of 130,000
children a week up until the year 2000.
Ken Livingston, Mayor of London, claimed that global
capitalism kills more people each year then were killed by Adolf Hitler. He
blamed the IMF and World Bank for deaths of millions due to their refusal to
ease the debt burden. Susan George stated that every year since 1981 between
15 and 20 million people died unnecessarily due to debt burden “because Third World governments have had to cut back on clean water and health programs to meet
their repayments.”
Debt, with its increasing amount of interest compounded
upon it, is dangerous for any nation because it means loss of sovereignty and
control. This
aspect, incidentally, is no accident. Lesser developed countries—especially
their elites and corrupt rulers—are not free of guilt when it comes to the
issue of the debt that they have accumulated. At the same time, if they did
not borrow and get in debt, pressure would definitely be put on them to do so.
Caufield noted:
Thus it has
been with the World Bank; refunding operations have become more and more of the
total of its lending. The result has been an accumulation of debt by the
Bank’s borrowers—and a gradual loss of sovereignty as well. No creditor is
willing to keep refunding forever without asserting some control over the way
the debtor conducts business. In earlier times, the great powers did not
hesitate to use military force to bend recalcitrant debtors to their will. In
his classic essay, “Public Debts,” published in 1887, the American economist
Henry Carter Adams wrote that “the granting of foreign credits is the first
step toward the establishment of an aggressive foreign policy, and under
certain conditions, leads inevitably to conquest and occupation.”
The Bank’s approach to its debtors is not so crude. Instead
of sending in the Marines, it offers advice on how countries should manage
their finances, make their laws, provide services to their people, and conduct
themselves in the international market. Its powers of persuasion are great,
due to the universal conviction that, should it decide to ostracize a borrower,
all other major national and international powers will follow its lead. Thus,
by the excessive lending—born of an underlying inconsistency its mission—the
Bank has added to its own power and depleted that of its borrowers.
John Perkins’
now famous Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
details contemporary economic intrigues. While describing his job of
evaluating projects, he wrote:
The unspoken aspect of every one of these projects was
that they were intended to create large profits for the contractors, and to
make a handful of wealthy and influential families in the receiving countries
very happy, while assuring the long-term financial dependence and therefore the
political loyalty of governments around the world. The larger the loan, the
better. The fact that the debt burden placed on a country would deprive its
poorest citizens of health, education, and other social services for decades to
come was not taken into consideration.
Perkins’ work has now been followed up by A Game as
Old as Empire: The Secret World of Economic Hit Men and the Web of
Global Corruption edited by Steven Hiatt.Hiatt writes,
Debt keeps Third World countries under control. Dependent on aid, loan reschedulings, and debt
rollovers to survive—never mind actually develop— they have been forced to
restructure their economies and rewrite their laws to meet conditions laid down
in IMF structural adjustment programs and World Bank conditionalities.
The current debt situation, with the major role that
interest is playing in it, is potentially very devastating for the world as a
whole. In Global Trends 2015, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) recognized:
The rising
tide of the global economy will create many economic winners, but it will not
lift all boats. [It will] spawn conflicts at home and abroad ensuring an
ever-wider gap between regional winners and losers than exists today. [Globalization’s]
evolution will be rocky, marked by chronic financial volatility and a widening
economic divide. Regions, countries and groups feeling left behind will face
deepening economic stagnation, political instability and cultural alienation. They
will foster political, ethnic, ideological and religious extremism, along with
the violence that often accompanies it.
Noreena Hertz has an excellent chapter in her work, The
Debt Threat: How debt is destroying the developing world… and threatening us
all, delineating many of the dangers that the massive debt—and, again,
which would not be as massive without the ever-growing aspect of interest—poses
for the world today. She details the dangers of extremism, terrorism,
depletion of the world’s natural resources, and more. To cite just one aspect,
she writes:
Debt’s ugly
progeny—poverty, inequality, and injustice—are also called upon to justify, and
even legitimize, acts of the greatest violence. Only a few weeks after the
World Trade Center was attacked, leading African commentator Michael Fortin
wrote: “We have to recognize that this deplorable act of aggression may have
been, at least in part, an act of revenge on the part of desperate and
humiliated people, crushed by the weight of the economic oppression practiced
by the peoples of the West.” Fortin’s language—“crushed,” “oppression,”
“desperate,” “humiliated”—is deliberately evocative. And it is manifestly
clear that there is an audience with whom such words powerfully resonate.
In reality, there are yet other ills related to interest
that could be discussed but the above should suffice for the purposes here.
|